Software security is a crucial aspect of any software development project, but it also involves making trade-offs between different goals and constraints. In this article, you will learn about some of the most important software security trade-offs that you may face as a software engineer or a software user, and how to balance them effectively.
One of the most common software security trade-offs is between functionality and security. Functionality refers to the features and capabilities that the software provides to the users, while security refers to the protection of the software and its data from unauthorized access, modification, or damage. Ideally, you want your software to be both functional and secure, but sometimes you may have to sacrifice one for the other. For example, if you want to implement a feature that requires user input, you may have to validate and sanitize the input to prevent malicious attacks, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting. This may reduce the functionality or usability of the feature, or increase the development time and cost.
I disagree that the trade off between security is functionality. Rather I would say the trade of is security and time/compute. The more secure our application is, the more steps of authentication it has the slower it runs or starts up. If the application has 10 steps before you can even do anything users may get tired of waiting even half a millisecond cost businesses millions. Security however isn't something we can take lightly. So whats the solution? We need to create a secure application that can't be exploited and have a "fake loading screen". By making the loading bar reach the 90 percent mark quickly users are much more likely to wait the additional bit of time .
Another common software security trade-off is between performance and security. Performance refers to how fast and efficiently the software runs, while security refers to how well the software resists or recovers from attacks. Sometimes, improving the performance of the software may compromise its security, or vice versa. For example, if you want to encrypt the data that the software handles, you may have to use a strong encryption algorithm that consumes more computational resources and slows down the software. Alternatively, if you want to speed up the software, you may have to use a weaker encryption algorithm that makes the data more vulnerable to decryption.
The trade off between security and performance is something companies deal with everyday. They find very interesting and unique ways to get past this hurdle. The most obvious solution is to get better hardware so you have more compute but for obvious reasons that isn't a favorable solution. One way companies overcome this is with fake loading screens designed to make the user longer than they normally would have. One example of this is with YouTube, have you ever noticed when you search up YouTube the page loads up right away but the videos are still loading up? That little animation let's us know the page is almost ready and entices us to wait a bit longer.
A third common software security trade-off is between usability and security. Usability refers to how easy and intuitive the software is for the users, while security refers to how well the software protects the users' privacy and identity. Sometimes, enhancing the usability of the software may reduce its security, or vice versa. For example, if you want to make the software more user-friendly, you may have to use a simple and memorable password or a biometric authentication method, such as a fingerprint or a face scan. However, these methods may be easier to guess or spoof than a complex and random password or a multi-factor authentication method, such as a token or a code.
A fourth common software security trade-off is between compatibility and security. Compatibility refers to how well the software works with other software or hardware systems, while security refers to how well the software isolates itself from potential threats or risks. Sometimes, increasing the compatibility of the software may decrease its security, or vice versa. For example, if you want to make the software more compatible with different platforms or devices, you may have to use a cross-platform framework or a web-based interface. However, these options may expose the software to more vulnerabilities or attacks than a native or a desktop application.
A fifth common software security trade-off is between maintainability and security. Maintainability refers to how easy and cost-effective it is to update and fix the software, while security refers to how well the software adapts to changing threats or requirements. Sometimes, improving the maintainability of the software may impair its security, or vice versa. For example, if you want to make the software more maintainable, you may have to use a modular or a microservice architecture that allows you to update or replace individual components without affecting the whole system. However, this may also create more attack surfaces or dependencies than a monolithic or a standalone architecture.
A frequent trade-off in software security involves balancing maintainability with security. Maintainability pertains to the ease and cost-effectiveness of updating and rectifying software, while security relates to the software's resilience against evolving threats or demands. Occasionally, efforts to enhance maintainability may compromise security, and vice versa. For instance, striving for improved maintainability might entail adopting a modular or microservices architecture, facilitating the updating or replacement of individual components without impacting the entire system. However, this approach could potentially broaden attack surfaces or dependencies compared to a monolithic or standalone architecture.
A sixth common software security trade-off is between transparency and security. Transparency refers to how open and clear the software is about its design, implementation, and operation, while security refers to how well the software conceals its secrets and weaknesses. Sometimes, enhancing the transparency of the software may diminish its security, or vice versa. For example, if you want to make the software more transparent, you may have to use an open source or a public domain license that allows anyone to access, modify, or distribute the software code. However, this may also allow attackers to discover or exploit the software flaws or backdoors more easily than a proprietary or a closed source license.
Open source may be inherently less secure then a private software application, however it has its benefits. You'll get feedback extremely quickly and any bugs and exploits will be revealed fairly quickly, another perk to open source is the sheer amount of people that will make meaningful contributions that will solve a lot of the problems you might face.